N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M IGUEL PULIDO-R OM ER O, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-70687 Age n c y No. A073-859-319 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 23, 2014 * * B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R AW LINSON, a

n d C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. M igue l Pulido-Rom e ro, a native an d c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture(“ C AT” ).



# FIL ED OCT 2 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, Ze haty ev . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006), a

nd we de ny the pe tition for re v i e w. Pulido-R om e ro te s tifie d tha t a na rc otic s c rim ina l thre ate ne d to kill PulidoR om e ro’ s polic e m an brothe r and his brother’ s fam ily , a nd subse que ntly

hire d hitm e n who kille d his brother. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm i nation tha

t Pulido-Rom e ro fa ile d to e sta b lish hesuffe re d ha

rm rising to the le ve l of pe rse c ution. Se e W ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th C ir. 2009) (re quiring a

showing tha

t ha rm to othe rs wa s “p art of ‘ a

patte rn of pe rse c ution c lose ly tie d to’ ” pe titione r him se lf); se e also N ahrv ani v . Gonzale

s , 399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th C ir. 2005) (va gue thre ats did not c om pe l finding of pa st pe rse c ution whe re the pe titione r ne ve r ha d a pe rsona l c onfronta

tion with the

pe o ple thre ate ning him). Substa

ntia l e vide nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de t e rm i nations that PulidoR om e ro fa ile d to e sta

blish a n obje c tive l y

re a sona ble fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Se e Gonzale

z-Me d i na v . Holde r , 641 F.3d 333, 338 (9th C ir. 2011) (upholding B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t pe titione r fa ile d to e sta

blish it wa s unre a sona

ble to re loc ate within M e xic o). Thus, Pulido-R om e ro’ s a sy l um

c la im fa ils. B e c a use Pulido-R om e ro fa ile d to m e e t the lowe r burde n of proof for a sy lum , his withholding of re

m o va l c la im

ne c e ssa rily fa ils. Se eZe h aty e , 453 F.3d a t 1190. 2 1 3 - 7 0 6 8 7Fina lly , substa ntia l e v ide nc e a lso supports the a g e nc y ’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f be c a use Pulido-R om e ro fa ile d to e sta blish it is m

ore like ly tha n not tha t he would be torture d by

or with thec onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of the gove rnm e nt if re turne d to M e x ic o. Se e Silay a v . Muk ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2008). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

3 1 3 - 7 0 6 8 7